And then, to make matters worse, around the same time, Einstein worked with two other scientists on a concept in Quantum Mechanics that later became known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen or EPR Event. In qm, it is noted that for conservation of mass and energy to remain so, as it does on obvious observation, the outer electrons in a shell of an atom must have opposite "spin" which is a quality of the state of an electron. For simplicity it will either be spin up or spin down.
When something affects the spin of one electron, such as the use of an electron microscope to observe this, the electron on the opposite side of the orbit must have a spin opposite the first electron. This alignment of spin will happen instantaneously, a requirement in qm because there is no time factor to be considered or measured. This will happen regardless of size of the electron. Which means information or an event or even some kind of quantum exchange of mass to cause alignment is happening faster than the speed of light, which invalidates Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This will be a bigger concern for the grand priests of einsteinian thought than for Einstein, himself, who always thought he would be proven wrong.
So even though the EPR event would prove Einstein wrong, he redeemed himself by letting the results stand as they may, instead of trying to hide it to make himself look good.
Blowing minds, kicking butt, and taking names - it's what I do...

What you have described, such as mass warping time and space, that is a description of an event. I could easily say the same thing by saying "put on your red shoes and dance the blues."
It does not exactly explain how the effect happens. If, per Einstein, there is no aether, no fabric of space against which particles such as light would encounter friction, based on the Michelson - Morley null result, then how is it that objects of mass warp space and time. What is it about mass that does this?
And Einstein said that light is a massless particle, literally just dreaming up crap in his head, trying to justify his statement that you cannot measure light the same way you measure everything else. Yet, he said that the trajectory of light would curve in the warped space time around objects of great mass. And this was seen to be so during eclipses. But this could also be explained by newtonian descriptions and no special use of time as a dimension.
For time has not been shown to be an actual dimension of the universe. It is, however, an abstract concept we use to describe causality. But Einstein said large velocities were not additive, based on his use of the lorentzian transforms. Lorentz was a dutch physicist and who joined forces with Fitzgerald, famous for the Fitzgerald Contractions described in Einstein's Special Theory, and those guys believed in an aether and developed some equations to describe it and Einstein took those to describe how time is a dimension affected by the warping of space by mass in that space. L' = L/ (1-v2/c2). Adjusted lorentzian length = equals measured length divided by the quantity of 1 minus the result of velocity squared over the speed of light squared (as denoted by c). Here was the problem for Einstein that he explained in his autbio journal that never made it into an actual bio and yes, I have read it in the original german and in english, in case you were wondering. He ran into necessity that kind of shot him in the foot.
Working on the field of statistical mechanics, or how to describe the motion of very small particles. To describe the result of collisions, like you might find in Poincare's Three Body problem, you can only describe this graphically. And it is not that we have limited scope of vision, which we do. It's just that there are 3 dimensions, not including time. And to describe any interaction or motion, you have to describe motions along the axes of two or three dimensions to come up with the observed vector. For the axes to be reliable, they must be orthogonal or perpendicular with each other. The component vectors are adding, either positive or negative, to create the resultant vector, which means velocities are additive,
Now that didn't stop people from trying to prove Einstein correct because they really liked his rock star hair. I hurt the feelings of a physics BBS member (back in the day) who thought he had me stumped by showing me a topological treatment of hyperbolic trig functions. First off, this literally as it sounds, taking a trig function and applying to a hyperbolic function, such as y = x2 and then describing this in topology, which is set theory, on steroids. The problem? Any math we use for description, whether hype trig, topology, riemannian space and n-space geometry and linear algebra, all of it depends on axes of measurement being orthogonal. And if that, then Einstein's theory cannot be correct. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark!
As far as small particle motion, didn't he prove that with the atom bomb? Not exactly. The equation E = mc2 was at one time rumored to come from his wife, who was also a physicist and where Einstein skipped classes to engage in his "thought model" work, and she actually went to classes with perfect attendance and graduated cum laude,
And if you look a the equation, it really is a matter of Newton's kinetic energy equation resolved for the oscillations of electrons in orbit. One of those Homer Simpson moments where you realize it was right in front of you. Doh!

Or a way of using the EPR event in quantum mechanics to effect gravity locally, something that Einstein could have maybe investigated in his general theory, which was already intimating that gravity is an effect of mass warping space and time, however, there was not and is not yet a strong enough link to say why mass warps or effects space and time, even by treating time as a dimension of space, which Einstein said it was, using math designed from an aether theory, ironic since Einstein surmised that an aether did not exist, based on the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, in order to explain why it seems that light has the same velocity, regardless of frame of reference and regardless of the inertial system of a source of light, such as the hydrogen fusion that is the process of a star.
So, all his general theory did was provide a maybe explanation to Newton's gravitational constant but it did not ultimately answer it. So far, gravity is not treated as a magnetic effect. Nor is there a way yet to explain magnetism, even considering the wavicle implications of quantum mechanics.
That is why I usually stick with Newton. It may not be complete but it is simple and explains most things adequately.
"I don't know. I can imagine quite a bit."

As well as the dogfight sequences with x-wing against the (bow)tie fighters where they maneuvered just like P-51 Mustangs and japanese Zeros, which would require a thick atmosphere, like ours, for wings to bite. That's a case of where George Lucas was short in science but long on exciting storytelling. In fact, it is often best when an author doesn't know as many facts. Just like an engineer really should not write fiction about engineering. He knows too much. Better to be someone who barely knows anything.
So, I give kudos to George, in spite of his scientific foul-ups because he wrote one heck of a space opera *minus singing." About the only thing that could sing always sang and that was Chewie.)

Great cover and I liked how you approached. Listening in my car, I thought the vocals had a bit too much sparkle in the EQ. Then, I remembered, I adjust the eq in my radio to deal with radio and if I had left it flat for USB media, it might sound more balanced. Because, at work, where I listened to it first on some fairly decent desk top speakers, it was alright.

I liked it a lot, too. In fact, I have d/l'd it to my flash drive so that I can hear it in my car on the flight home. Get on the tollway, set the cruise at 80, try stay awake, most times. But this should wake me up.